Jump to content


Photo

HUGE Court Decision on Maryland Concealed Permit Case


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
53 replies to this topic

#31 sirflyguy

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,487 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 09

Posted 05 March 2012 - 09:44 PM

My understanding is this judge ruled that the law of good cause could not survive an intermediate scrutiny standard. If that fails intermediate, Illinois complete ban on carry can't survive rational basis. . .

This is big, not to mention the beyond the home issue, sounds an awful lot like what we argued today at the task force in Chicago

I thought, "this is a big deal", when I read the article. After reading your post, Todd, I know I was right!

Certified NRA Pistol Instructor
NRA-Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA-Certified Personal Protection In the Home Instructor

NRA-Certified Personal Protection Outside the Home Instructor 

NRA-Certified Range Safety Officer

IL FCCA Approved Instructor


#32 NakPPI

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,254 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 05 March 2012 - 10:09 PM

My understanding is this judge ruled that the law of good cause could not survive an intermediate scrutiny standard. If that fails intermediate, Illinois complete ban on carry can't survive rational basis. . .

This is big, not to mention the beyond the home issue, sounds an awful lot like what we argued today at the task force in Chicago


Todd, you have the right of it for sure. If "good cause" doesn't survive intermediate scrutiny, then a "ban" on open and concealed carry certainly can't either. There's nothing "rational" about the complete denial of a right to prevent "some" accidents. We all knew that Judge Myerscough's opinion was wacky, this just proves it. :Drunk emoticon: Also hinted in the opinion is the concealed vs. open carry issue. Prohibition of concealed carry has been historically OK, so long as open carry was permitted. As such, the Illinois general assembly is risking an opinion in Shepard that would uphold a ban on concealed carry and allow open carry...
Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.

#33 Steve O

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 700 posts
  • Joined: 07-May 11

Posted 05 March 2012 - 10:33 PM

Their all lawyers and they know this isn't gonna be good for their cause but they will use every trick in the book to make this take as long as possible :Drunk emoticon:
"The more criminal the leadership of a country becomes, the easier it is for the average person to find himself labeled a criminal by that same leadership." ME

"A government that does not trust it’s law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust.” James Madison.

“To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm… is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. - 1878"]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

#34 TomKoz

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,433 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 10

Posted 05 March 2012 - 10:48 PM

Their all lawyers and they know this isn't gonna be good for their cause but they will use every trick in the book to make this take as long as possible :Drunk emoticon:



Who should I send my money to to get this pushed through as soon as possible????
Stay Alert ... Stay Alive !!

#35 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,151 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 06 March 2012 - 07:32 AM


Their all lawyers and they know this isn't gonna be good for their cause but they will use every trick in the book to make this take as long as possible Posted Image



Who should I send my money to to get this pushed through as soon as possible????



I am not sure there is any need to send money to anyone to deal with the court cases. The other side is pretty much funding them. In any case, there is no practical way to speed these cases up. I don't see any carry cases hitting SCOTUS soon enough to see a decision before June of 2014. The courts are just very slow. Which is not really a bad thing.

LTC and other political and legislative issues are where one should spend money if one is inclined to do so, IMO. There are several organizations around that would put it to good use in those arenas. Even if we win a carry case at SCOTUS and got everything we wanted, we would still have to deal with UUW (and other issues) in IL and the home rule problem. Those problems will not just go away on their own. They are inherently political and legislative in nature and are going to have to be dealt with legislatively and politically.

Edited by bob, 06 March 2012 - 07:33 AM.

bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#36 Xwing

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,975 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 09

Posted 06 March 2012 - 08:06 AM

This court case was the front-page main article on FoxNews yesterday for a bit. Very exciting to hear! Now if only we'd hear the same within the 7th district...
NRA Lifetime Member
IGOLD 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
CCW Laws: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Posted anti-gun business listing: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Illinois Government: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)

#37 wilessiuc

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 11

Posted 06 March 2012 - 08:22 AM

The best course of action has been, and will continue to be, a bill passed through Springfield. I say this because there are no guarantees how the Courts will rule. The vast majority of lower courts have ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not apply outside of one's home. While I am hopeful the US Supremes would rule in our favor, Kennedy is a notorious flip-flopper, and if Obama is reelected, there is a great chance we lose our majority on the Court. I remember reading these boards and it seemed like everyone thought it was a forgone conclusion that Shepard was going to go our way, which I never quite understood, because Myerscough was recommended for her appointment by Durbin and appointed by Obama.

With all that negativity aside, I do feel like this year is the year for 148!
"To Disarm The People - That Was The Best And Most Effectual Way To Enslave Them" - George Mason

ONE STATE - ONE LAW

#38 scough

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 772 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 11

Posted 06 March 2012 - 08:49 AM

The best course of action has been, and will continue to be, a bill passed through Springfield. I say this because there are no guarantees how the Courts will rule. The vast majority of lower courts have ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not apply outside of one's home. While I am hopeful the US Supremes would rule in our favor, Kennedy is a notorious flip-flopper, and if Obama is reelected, there is a great chance we lose our majority on the Court. I remember reading these boards and it seemed like everyone thought it was a forgone conclusion that Shepard was going to go our way, which I never quite understood, because Myerscough was recommended for her appointment by Durbin and appointed by Obama.With all that negativity aside, I do feel like this year is the year for 148!


Am I reading this correctly, but Myerscough was the presiding judge on Moore, not Shepard? As far as I know, the only progress so far in Shepard has been a series of motions back and forth?

#39 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,303 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 06 March 2012 - 08:55 AM


The best course of action has been, and will continue to be, a bill passed through Springfield. I say this because there are no guarantees how the Courts will rule. The vast majority of lower courts have ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not apply outside of one's home. While I am hopeful the US Supremes would rule in our favor, Kennedy is a notorious flip-flopper, and if Obama is reelected, there is a great chance we lose our majority on the Court. I remember reading these boards and it seemed like everyone thought it was a forgone conclusion that Shepard was going to go our way, which I never quite understood, because Myerscough was recommended for her appointment by Durbin and appointed by Obama.With all that negativity aside, I do feel like this year is the year for 148!


Am I reading this correctly, but Myerscough was the presiding judge on Moore, not Shepard? As far as I know, the only progress so far in Shepard has been a series of motions back and forth?



Good catch Scough!

Yes, Myerscough was the judge on Moore vs Madigan, not the Shepard case. Myerscough did not issue a decision, she simply dismissed the case if I understand correctly. The Moore case has been appealed to the appellate court.

We're still awaiting a decision on Shepard, I believe the judge there is Steihl (sp?). I'm told that some folks expect a decision from the Shepard case before May. But then, we hoped for one before now.

AB
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB


#40 NakPPI

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,254 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 06 March 2012 - 10:06 AM

Judge Meyerscough, in Moore v Madigan did two things -she denied our motion for injunction and granted the State's motion to dismiss. Moore is similar to Wilson v Cook County, it's a pleading case.

Woollard is a summary judgment case. Shepard is also a summary judgment case. That's the connection.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.

#41 scough

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 772 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 11

Posted 06 March 2012 - 10:06 AM



The best course of action has been, and will continue to be, a bill passed through Springfield. I say this because there are no guarantees how the Courts will rule. The vast majority of lower courts have ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not apply outside of one's home. While I am hopeful the US Supremes would rule in our favor, Kennedy is a notorious flip-flopper, and if Obama is reelected, there is a great chance we lose our majority on the Court. I remember reading these boards and it seemed like everyone thought it was a forgone conclusion that Shepard was going to go our way, which I never quite understood, because Myerscough was recommended for her appointment by Durbin and appointed by Obama.With all that negativity aside, I do feel like this year is the year for 148!


Am I reading this correctly, but Myerscough was the presiding judge on Moore, not Shepard? As far as I know, the only progress so far in Shepard has been a series of motions back and forth?



Good catch Scough!

Yes, Myerscough was the judge on Moore vs Madigan, not the Shepard case. Myerscough did not issue a decision, she simply dismissed the case if I understand correctly. The Moore case has been appealed to the appellate court.

We're still awaiting a decision on Shepard, I believe the judge there is Steihl (sp?). I'm told that some folks expect a decision from the Shepard case before May. But then, we hoped for one before now.

AB


I thought the popular expectation was for a later Feb, early March decision? I thought back in mid-January, Molly has posted a message with some insider guidance regarding time frames. While anticipating a judges perogative is a fools play, I'm not sure what has happened in the last 6 weeks to drastically change the expectation back another 90 days? Have I missed anything?

#42 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,303 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 06 March 2012 - 10:22 AM



Good catch Scough!

Yes, Myerscough was the judge on Moore vs Madigan, not the Shepard case. Myerscough did not issue a decision, she simply dismissed the case if I understand correctly. The Moore case has been appealed to the appellate court.

We're still awaiting a decision on Shepard, I believe the judge there is Steihl (sp?). I'm told that some folks expect a decision from the Shepard case before May. But then, we hoped for one before now.

AB


I thought the popular expectation was for a later Feb, early March decision? I thought back in mid-January, Molly has posted a message with some insider guidance regarding time frames. While anticipating a judges perogative is a fools play, I'm not sure what has happened in the last 6 weeks to drastically change the expectation back another 90 days? Have I missed anything?


A decision in that time frame would be before May, would it not?? There have been some motions filed that delayed a decision. The Maryland decision might bring another motion which would delay it another week. If that brings strength to our argument, I can wait another week.

Tim
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB


#43 wilessiuc

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 11

Posted 06 March 2012 - 11:30 AM


The best course of action has been, and will continue to be, a bill passed through Springfield. I say this because there are no guarantees how the Courts will rule. The vast majority of lower courts have ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not apply outside of one's home. While I am hopeful the US Supremes would rule in our favor, Kennedy is a notorious flip-flopper, and if Obama is reelected, there is a great chance we lose our majority on the Court. I remember reading these boards and it seemed like everyone thought it was a forgone conclusion that Shepard was going to go our way, which I never quite understood, because Myerscough was recommended for her appointment by Durbin and appointed by Obama.With all that negativity aside, I do feel like this year is the year for 148!


Am I reading this correctly, but Myerscough was the presiding judge on Moore, not Shepard? As far as I know, the only progress so far in Shepard has been a series of motions back and forth?


Good catch, I meant Moore!!
"To Disarm The People - That Was The Best And Most Effectual Way To Enslave Them" - George Mason

ONE STATE - ONE LAW

#44 ishmo

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,603 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 05

Posted 07 March 2012 - 08:10 AM

Interesting article on the decision from the Baltimore Sun

Lawyers say gun ruling likely to withstand appeal

#45 scough

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 772 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 11

Posted 07 March 2012 - 10:27 AM




Good catch Scough!

Yes, Myerscough was the judge on Moore vs Madigan, not the Shepard case. Myerscough did not issue a decision, she simply dismissed the case if I understand correctly. The Moore case has been appealed to the appellate court.

We're still awaiting a decision on Shepard, I believe the judge there is Steihl (sp?). I'm told that some folks expect a decision from the Shepard case before May. But then, we hoped for one before now.

AB


I thought the popular expectation was for a later Feb, early March decision? I thought back in mid-January, Molly has posted a message with some insider guidance regarding time frames. While anticipating a judges perogative is a fools play, I'm not sure what has happened in the last 6 weeks to drastically change the expectation back another 90 days? Have I missed anything?


A decision in that time frame would be before May, would it not?? There have been some motions filed that delayed a decision. The Maryland decision might bring another motion which would delay it another week. If that brings strength to our argument, I can wait another week.

Tim


Not trying to upset the wheelcart and I get your point, but saying before the year 2014 would likewise be correct as well. I recall seeing a number of posts from 'informed' folks suggesting that beyond 90 days to 120 days from the last motion with a summary judgement starts becoming unreasonable. Either way, it's pretty clear that we should be something regarding Shepard soon!

#46 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Moderator
  • 9,270 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 07 March 2012 - 11:20 AM

Maybe Molly B's post that you're thinking of is this one from January 15, 2012:

http://illinoiscarry...on&fromsearch=1

Talked with a someone this weekend who has experience in federal court in the southern district.
He went online to look at the case. It's his opinion that the "delay" looks like routine scheduling between
filings and then 30-60 day periods for the opposing side to respond. Looking at the last filing he thinks, if there
aren't any more filings/motions, we could hear something from the court in February or sooner. One man's opinion.



There were additional fillings in early February so that might explain the delay.
.
.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Link to Livestream Blueroom Events Page

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis

#47 scough

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 772 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 11

Posted 07 March 2012 - 12:00 PM

Maybe Molly B's post that you're thinking of is this one from January 15, 2012:

http://illinoiscarry...on&fromsearch=1


Talked with a someone this weekend who has experience in federal court in the southern district.
He went online to look at the case. It's his opinion that the "delay" looks like routine scheduling between
filings and then 30-60 day periods for the opposing side to respond. Looking at the last filing he thinks, if there
aren't any more filings/motions, we could hear something from the court in February or sooner. One man's opinion.



There were additional fillings in early February so that might explain the delay.



Thanks! I have been relying on IRSA's website here that shows the date of the last motion being in Sept.

http://www.isra.org/lawsuits/#Shepard

I knew there was something in November, but missed the February Motions. Thanks for posting this link!

#48 Ranger

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 686 posts
  • Joined: 22-February 09

Posted 07 March 2012 - 05:19 PM

I think I read earlier in this thread that Meyercough was appointed by Obama.

In the Gun ruling article, it states "Woollard filed a lawsuit in federal court, and won when Legg, who was nominated to his position by Republican President George H.W. Bush, found in his favor."

Who nominated the judge that will hear the Shepherd case?

Does anyone doubt how important elections are as they relate to the second amendment?

#49 Hossua

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,329 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 08

Posted 07 March 2012 - 08:25 PM

I think I read earlier in this thread that Meyercough was appointed by Obama.

In the Gun ruling article, it states "Woollard filed a lawsuit in federal court, and won when Legg, who was nominated to his position by Republican President George H.W. Bush, found in his favor."

Who nominated the judge that will hear the Shepherd case?

Does anyone doubt how important elections are as they relate to the second amendment?

I have never doubted it, but Republican appointments have their own issues I don't agree with. Totally understand that we are all in it for gun rights here, but voting is not a single issue proposition.

#50 Ranger

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 686 posts
  • Joined: 22-February 09

Posted 07 March 2012 - 10:04 PM

Hossua: Agreed. I don't think there will ever be a "perfect" candidate or party. We just have to focus on what issues are most important and greatest risk / opportunity at the time. For me, in this election, I've got to vote for change from Obama and Reid. Even though my vote in Illinois won't really matter, I'll have a clear concience.

#51 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,111 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 08 March 2012 - 09:28 AM

If I understood correctly, I believe it was Mike W. that stated another motion was being filed in Sheppard by our side based on the Woolard MD decision. So another week or two delay based on that, but can only help in a victorious outcome.
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA, CCRKBA & SAF

#52 snubjob

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 11

Posted 08 March 2012 - 12:34 PM

The U.S. Supreme Court will eventually have to hear the issue of whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies outside of the home. Circuits are split as to the answer, and the Supreme Court loves to hear those types of cases. However, we are probably at least 2-3 years away from this happening. This makes the 2012 election crucial. If Obama wins, he almost certainly will have anywhere from 1-3 nominations to make to the Court. Another Sotomayor or Kagan and you can imagine how the Court will rule.

This is exactly what the chicago machine is counting on. They have the will and means to stall this process until this scenario plays out. And they are intent on success. They have influence that reaches into every branch of our government. Call me negative or whatever you want, but what it boils down to is that if concealed carry doesn't become a reality THIS legislative session, it could be several years down the road if ever.

#53 RECarry

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,209 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 12

Posted 08 March 2012 - 01:38 PM


The U.S. Supreme Court will eventually have to hear the issue of whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies outside of the home. Circuits are split as to the answer, and the Supreme Court loves to hear those types of cases. However, we are probably at least 2-3 years away from this happening. This makes the 2012 election crucial. If Obama wins, he almost certainly will have anywhere from 1-3 nominations to make to the Court. Another Sotomayor or Kagan and you can imagine how the Court will rule.

This is exactly what the chicago machine is counting on. They have the will and means to stall this process until this scenario plays out. And they are intent on success. They have influence that reaches into every branch of our government. Call me negative or whatever you want, but what it boils down to is that if concealed carry doesn't become a reality THIS legislative session, it could be several years down the road if ever.


My latest attempt to interact with our reluctant D-Rep. Karey May was to show (politely, in graph form) that IL is losing good people (taxpayers) to states that show greater respect for citizens and the Constitution. The anti's may be determined to win this battle over CCW but they WILL lose the war on economic grounds. In other words, I have stopped arguing over "why we should have CCW" and begun asking my Rep. why the Dems spend so much time cramming down their personal agenda instead of allowing Constitutional rights to stand - so lawmakers can focus on fixing the budget mess. Puts the "what good are you?" back on them.
A woman's "Right to Choose" the abortion issue starts with the words "No!", "Stop!", and "I am armed!".

#54 NakPPI

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,254 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 08 March 2012 - 02:03 PM

Karen May is such a waste of space. She doesn't listen to anyone but the yes men she surrounds herself with.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.